Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Origin?
Darkmatic
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 57 (263722)
11-28-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
11-28-2005 7:42 AM


Re: Infinitum
I seem to remember someone here saying that the farther away a galaxy is from us , the mre red shift that galaxy has and thus it is acclelerating . The energy density is driving force , and supposedly it is dark energy which causes this acceleration .
I did some reading up and another explanation for this percieved acceleration of farther away galaxies is that as we look at distant galaxies we are looking back in time , and thus going by the original expansion theory they would have been going faster then that they are now , thus the percieved acceleration of expansion . If this model is correct , then all matter will eventually slow to a halt and initiate the compression and after that and many eons of tense waiting and fretting over the end of the universe you will get the big crunch , and supposedly it all starts again and you get your gravitational singularity.
But the dark energy and accelerating expansion is the latest model going off the latest evidence .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 11-28-2005 7:42 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 11-28-2005 11:00 AM Darkmatic has not replied
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 11:48 AM Darkmatic has not replied
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2005 6:51 PM Darkmatic has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 57 (263744)
11-28-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Darkmatic
11-28-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Infinitum
I seem to remember someone here saying that the farther away a galaxy is from us , the mre red shift that galaxy has and thus it is acclelerating .
No, that would not show acceleration. It is perhaps evidence that there was acceleration at the early inflation a long time ago. But it does not demonstrate that there is any current acceleration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 9:44 AM Darkmatic has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 18 of 57 (263752)
11-28-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Darkmatic
11-28-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Infinitum
Hello, Darkmatic.
Darkmatic writes:
But the dark energy and accelerating expansion is the latest model going off the latest evidence.
That is my understanding as well.
From Einstein's Dark Energy Accelerates The Universe:
The Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) aims to discover and examine 700 distant supernovae to map out the history of the expansion of the universe. The survey confirms earlier discoveries that the expansion of the universe proceeded more slowly in the past and is speeding up today, apparently driven by some unknown form of energy. Since scientists don't know much about this mysterious new form of energy, they call it "dark energy."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 9:44 AM Darkmatic has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 19 of 57 (263888)
11-28-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Darkmatic
11-28-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Infinitum
the farther away a galaxy is from us , the mre red shift that galaxy has
correct
and thus it is acclelerating
No, redshift only reveals velocity of recession, it does not reveal acceleration/deceleration.
I did some reading up and another explanation for this percieved acceleration of farther away galaxies is that as we look at distant galaxies we are looking back in time , and thus going by the original expansion theory they would have been going faster then that they are now
In a conventional big bang scenario this is true but the observed acceleration contradicts this.
thus the percieved acceleration of expansion
No, this conclusion is not compatable with the evidence. The acceleration appears real.
If this model is correct , then all matter will eventually slow to a halt and initiate the compression and after that and many eons of tense waiting and fretting over the end of the universe you will get the big crunch
Not necessarily. Slow down occurs in all three original big bang scenarios: closed, flat and open. Only the closed re-collapses.
But the dark energy and accelerating expansion is the latest model going off the latest evidence.
Correct. Just to add, Dark Energy is the name given to the driving agent of the acceleration. The mystery is not why is there dark energy, but why is there so little dark energy. We have long predicted its existence, though some of the predicted values have been a little out (~10^100 times out in some cases !!!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 9:44 AM Darkmatic has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 57 (273906)
12-29-2005 4:48 PM


Well, this is how I've come to understand it:
In 8th grade, our science teacher showed us a map of the stars. He then overlaid that map with a map of the stars at a later date. Continuing this, a "spiral-like" image began to take shape. This showed us at most that the Universe is moving in an outwardly direction.
I would assume the speed could be measured by simply measuring the change in a period of time, and then measuring the change in another period of equal time. If, for the same period of time, the later measurement showed a greater change, then we could take it to mean that the Universe is not only moving outward, but doing so at an increasing rate of speed.
Now, onto what I think of the Big Bang. Really, I dislike it. It doesn't really offer up much of an explanation for why the bang occured. I can accept the outward motion of the Universe, but I cannot accept the Bing Bang, the occurance of which we have little proof. Suppose you were to say that if I saw a car moving north, I could believe it to have come from the south. In that manner, if I see the Universe moving out, I should believe it to have come from the centre? I think not! We can say the car came from the south, but not that it came from, for example, Texas. We can see that the Universe came from a central location, but not that it was all created there, nor that it was as compact as a scientist would like us to believe.
I think of the Big Bang about what I think of Creationism: it STINKS!
Trék

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 12-29-2005 5:12 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 12-30-2005 6:54 AM Jon has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 21 of 57 (273912)
12-29-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
10-07-2005 8:40 PM


Eta? Cave?
The orgin of the BB is "a mystery wrapped in a enigma contained in a riddle." The events that occurred at t=something before Plankes time, are forever obscured from human knowlege. As time and space and the cosmos have they're begining once this event took place. One can use scientific methodology to tease out the details. But anything prior is speculation. It was Carl Sagen that said. " The Cosmos is all there ever was, and all there ever will be." Speculating before that is fun and interesting but just as silly as say "here be dragons." IMO. I doubt we ever stop asking the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 8:40 PM bkelly has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 22 of 57 (273917)
12-29-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
12-29-2005 4:48 PM


Hello, Trekuhrid.
Trekuhid writes:
It doesn't really offer up much of an explanation for why the bang occured.
Heh, wont you be dissapointed if you ever find out there is no why. That is it in a nut shell.
Reason de entre' a reason for being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 12-29-2005 4:48 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 57 (273962)
12-29-2005 7:12 PM


I hope we are talking about the same type of "why." By "why" I do not mean the "reason for", but rather the "cause of."
From what I can observe in the world around me, I can see that all things happen in a cause-effect sort of manner. It is my thinking that if the Universe had a beginning, it must have had just such a beginning, i.e., cause-effect. However, then we must find the cause, and if the cause is found, then we must consider that the cause is actually part of the Universe itself, and that the cause (the Universe at that time) only added to its size by creating the effect. In this case, we must find the cause for the cause, which now becomes our new effect. This endless "tantrum" could go on forever!
However, if the Universe were to have always existed, then it shouldn't be moving from a centre. Because if we do rewind the tape, the Universe can become only so compact in that small space. From this, we can conclude that the Universe (at least as we see it) had a beginning.
Or, we can conclude that the Universe existed in that state for an infinate period of time, and only recently did it "bang" outward. Once again, we see that there ought be a cause to this "bang." Which leads us to searching for yet another cause, leading us back to the "tantrum."
So, there must have been a beginning, and there must have been a cause.
The Big Bang focuses on the cause of this beginning, and the explosion for which we have no proof, is really no more a valid argument than an intelligent creator for whom we have no proof. Science is supposed to base its conclusion on evidence, yet, it has come to the conclusion of the Big Bang, with little to none for its support.
Trék

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 24 of 57 (274099)
12-30-2005 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
12-29-2005 4:48 PM


Hi Trékuhrid
In 8th grade, our science teacher showed us a map of the stars...
...This showed us at most that the Universe is moving in an outwardly direction.
Motion of the stars is not related to the expansion of the universe. The stars move within the Galaxy, both orbiting the centre and having their own proper motions. Even nearby galaxies do not reveal the expansion. Our big sister galaxy, Andromeda, is actually on a collison course with us! You have to look much further afield at the distant galaxies to see the overall expansion.
would assume the speed could be measured by simply measuring the change in a period of time
We can't do this because our errors in measuring the distance are many times greater than the actual distance a galaxy will move in a human lifetime.
We measure the redshift in the galaxys' spectra. This reveals their recessional velocity and in turn we can determine their distance. This is cross-checked with other distance measuring methodologies for closer galaxies.
Now, onto what I think of the Big Bang. Really, I dislike it. It doesn't really offer up much of an explanation for why the bang occured.
This is a common viewpoint but based upon a very large misconception. The expansion of the universe is not what tells us there was a big bang. The mathematics of General Relativity tells us that the universe "began" in a Big Bang, and so we should see that the universe is expanding. We look, and it is, so the expansion is observational evidence for the Big Bang. So the explanation for the Big Bang is very simple: General Relativity tells us that it happened. The Big Bang has exactly the same explanation as why things "fall" towards the Earth, why the Moon orbits the Earth, etc. It is all part of the same theory of gravitation.
Check out my other posts in this forum for more details on what the Big Bang is actually all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 12-29-2005 4:48 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 57 (274314)
12-31-2005 1:09 AM


Well, I just took a look at the other threads here, and I can say that I don't understand any of them.
What is general relativity? What does it have to do with the Big Bang?
I somewhat understand your globe analogy, and the horn and what not, but I don't understand why scientists think that it is that way. Clearly it must have something to do with that relativity that you're talking about.
Trék

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 12-31-2005 4:33 AM Jon has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 26 of 57 (274337)
12-31-2005 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
12-31-2005 1:09 AM


What is general relativity? What does it have to do with the Big Bang?
Very big questions for New Year's Eve!
GR is Einstein's masterpiece. Initially he developed Special Relativity, which is the theory that explains the interconnections between space and time, and how that affects what we call motion. Here the ideas of 4 dimensional space-time, the constancy of the speed of light, time dilation, length contraction, etc are all introduced. It enfoced the role of (4d) geometry in physics. To say that SR revolutionised the way we think about space and time is the understatement of the year.
SR was published in 1905, and Einstein spent the next 10 years developing GR, which was the incorporation of our concept of gravity into SR. He was sparked by the thought that if you were trapped in a lift, it was impossible for you to determine whether the lift was sat motionless on the ground or was accelerating through empty space at 1g. Both gave exactly the same sensation inside the lift. Acceleration had already been reduced to a geometrical concept in SR, so he reasoned that gravity was not some mysterious Newtonian force, but another geometrical concept within 4d space-time. Gravity became gravitation, the curvature of the 4d space-time that had remained uncurved or flat in SR.
His final equation (the Einstein Equation) G=8(pi)T takes a mass distribution and spits out the shape of space-time around that mass, which determines all associated gravity and motion.
If you stick in a spherical mass, you get something called the Swcharzschild solution - this gives the space-time around the earth or the Sun (approximating them as spherical and non-rotating - we can correct for these but it gets messy). This space-time gives all of the predictions of Newtonian gravity plus it explains the anomalies that Newtonian gravity could not explain. If the mass is sufficiently dense (restricted to a small enough sphere) then this same solution predicts what we now call a black hole (so a black hole, like the big bang, is a result of the mathematics... not just some fancy physics idea!).
Now, if we put in an infinte uniform mass distribution (like dust scattered through empty space) we get a different solution. The idea is that this distribution mimics the universe on the largest scale. This solution describes space-time as a finite hyper-sphere that starts with zero size (and hence infinite density), expands to maximum, and then contracts back to zero size.
When Einstein saw this he was most perturbed. In the early 1900s, the universe was considered fixed and static. Einstein introduced a fudge factor to stop this expansion and contraction, and made this universe balance at a fixed size. He was later to call this his greatest mistake, because it wasn't long before Hubble discovered that the Universe was actually expanding!
And thus the big bang theory was born, the big bang itself simply being this initial infinte density point, but the theory governing the entire universe, past and future. Notice there is no concept of explosion in space or any other such popular nonsense. The universe simply expands from zero size.
Why should we believe this? Can we trust GR? This assumption of a uniform distribution of matter doesn't look very much like our universe!
Well, GR is remarkably well tested. It predicts many strange and bizarre phenomena, many of which have been observed and shown to agree perfectly with the predictions of GR. We have also examined literally hundreds of other possible theories of gravity and none come close to GR (other than a few which are so similar to GR, they still predict a big bang).
The uniform assumption was always a worry, but we do notice that the larger the scale we look at matter in the universe, the more uniform it appears. The final proof of this was the observation of the cosmic microwave background, which is more than uniform enough to convince us.
What about evidence for the big bang? Well, I have work to do, so go check out the Wikipedia entry and you will see all of the evidence laid out.
I hope this helps a little.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 12-31-2005 04:37 AM
This message has been edited by cavediver, 12-31-2005 04:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 12-31-2005 1:09 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 57 (274486)
12-31-2005 6:44 PM


This helps somewhat, but it still seems as though an assumption is being made that the Universe was once a tiny dense little ball.
Are these little "dust particles" pushing on space-time in all directions so as to cause it to expand? Because that is about what I get from what you say...
I'm no scientist, but I will have a look at that Wikipedia thing, as soon as I get back from my own New Year's celebtrating.
Thanks,
Trék

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 01-02-2006 10:25 AM Jon has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 57 (274985)
01-02-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
12-31-2005 6:44 PM


The Big Bang is a prediction of General Relativity
it still seems as though an assumption is being made that the Universe was once a tiny dense little ball.
No, it most certainly is not an assumption. It is a prediction of General Relativity. That everything appears to be flying apart from each other is evidence for this prediction.
Are these little "dust particles" pushing on space-time in all directions so as to cause it to expand?
No, they are causing the slow down and eventual re-collapse (in the original closed Big Bang model). The initial outward expansion is effectively a negative energy phenomenon to balance the positive energy of the matter (the "dust"). This is what we mean when we say the universe has zero energy.
Thanks
You are most welcome. Keep asking. This stuff is not intuitive and has little in common with everyday experience. It is difficult enough for scientists that don't happen to work in this particular field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 12-31-2005 6:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 01-02-2006 10:05 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 01-02-2006 10:19 PM cavediver has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 57 (275162)
01-02-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
01-02-2006 10:25 AM


Re: The Big Bang is a prediction of General Relativity
From Wikipedia: Big Bang.
quote:
The Big Bang is a consequence of the observed Hubble's law velocities of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle imply that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lematre model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the Universe has expanded from a primeval state, in which all the matter and energy in the Universe was at an immense temperature and density.
This seems to be what I was saying about how the existence of the Big Bang was thought to have happened based on the fact that the Universe is expanding. They say that it was "extrapolated into the past" to "show that the Universe has expanded from a primeval state..."
I have to say, I am rather confused now.
Trék

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 01-02-2006 10:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2006 1:57 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 01-03-2006 4:31 AM Jon has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 57 (275172)
01-02-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
01-02-2006 10:25 AM


Re: The Big Bang is a prediction of General Relativity
Hi Cavediver,
I do appreciate your post and insights.
When you say : "eventual recollapse" ie: as in the original closed universe scenario. Is this a fairly recent view? I was under the impression that the universe had enough mass to expand indefinately.
That the 'big crunch' was not in our future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 01-02-2006 10:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 01-03-2006 4:50 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024